Thank you to all of you who were able to come to class on Thursday; I hope you enjoyed the class as much as I did. Everyone’s willingness to discuss in depth some of the moral grey areas generated insightful conversation as well as highlighted some areas that needed to be explored more. Professor Waterston we all still miss you very much! I know that your insight as an anthropologist would have provided a missing perspective, in terms of cultural relativism, that would have fostered further debate.
We started the class by retracing some of the claims that Martha Nussbaum advocates for in her “capabilities approach.” Plenty examples were given to provide some concrete examples to the abstract list of capabilities that Nussbaum puts forward. For example, Michelle mentioned that freedom of imagination should include any experience that an individual should be able to reflect on their own views and ideas without being fearful of being shamed or made fun of. Then, we analyzed the impact of culture through the gender workshop. As most of us acknowledged and/or realized, culture significantly impacts and changes what the capabilities approach may look like. The exercise involving the choice between legalizing female genital mutilation (fgm), also known as female cutting, or the use of the burka at first produced more in favor of legalizing the burka rather than the practice of fgm. However, several students changed their initial positions after some disagreement over the role of government. At the end of the class, I posed the question “what was the most messed up thing that you know.” Most the examples used involved commonalities of oppression that are grounded in human experience. With this in mind, do you guys agree with Nussbaum’s major claim that human experience should be the foundation for human rights rather than theories dealing with rights, duties, and other sources that are grounded in metaphysical support or the belief in a higher power? Or, as Professor Reitz said, do you feel that grounded human rights frameworks in experience may seem imperialistic?
Professor Stein and I disagreed over the legalization of female genital mutilation. I argued that legalizing it would create a safer environment for individuals who undergo it because criminalization may create a black market that has been embraced in many cultures. On the other hand, Professor Stein asserted that having this system sponsored by the state would send a message that it is okay, and it would also undermine aspiration to eliminate it. Since we did not get a chance to finish this discussion towards the end of class, I am wondering what line of thinking is more persuasive?
One of Nussbaum’s main points throughout her article is that individuals should be critical of situations in which an individual has had one of her capabilities restricted, e.g., right to bodily integrity. In other words, we, as activists, should focus on making sure individuals have the ability to function in certain ways without being critical of the way they function. So, for those of you who disagree with the practice of female genital mutilation, would you still object to the practice if an individual who had access to all the capabilities still choose to undergo the procedure?
12 comments:
I just want to clarify that that is my title. Sally is too modest to take any credit, but her class rocked. I was so engaged with the topic that it was really hard for me to transition to my following class: and I was teaching Dickens!!
As long as I'm clarifying, I just want to unpack the statement about rights grounded in experience as imperialist. I think to assume that one knows best, or that being right legitimates intervention, is imperialist. But as I said in seminar, in certain cases I am fine with that! I know this is a contradiction. While I reject the history of imperialism and can hardly imagine any military invasion that I would support at this point, I do embrace science. I think there are objective truths there and we have a responsibility to ourselves, our planet and future generations to apply that science as best we can. Just because one's culture/ideology would cause you to ignore that science doesn't mean that we should allow that to influence policy in the spirit of relativism or tolerance.
The issue of FGM seems on some level murkier (such a local issue in terms of the range of cultures/practitioners, etc), but it still seems clear to me. Clearly a violation of the rights of the girl. Sally asked if I would support someone knowingly choosing that. I would but I would require that there was a Mutilation Age, like a drinking age, and I would require a literacy test, like a driving test, in order to be eligible.
Again, I am so sorry to have missed Sally's class that I know touched on such important issues. Since I wasn't there, and don't know exactly what was discussed (though I get an idea reading the blog posts so far) I'd just like to pose some questions or thoughts of my own:
It seems the class discussion centered on how to come up with a framework for human rights that does not impose Eurocentric and androcentric hegemonic values, a framework that allows for an appreciation of each “culture” on its own terms—or what we anthropologists call “cultural relativism.” The idea of cultural relativism, a cornerstone principal of anthropology, suggests the importance of keeping an “open mind” rather than a closed one (ethnocentrism) when the anthropologist enters unfamiliar turf to study another society and culture.
Without getting into the history of anthropology as a discipline and what it has learned over its 125+/- year institutionalized history, is that NO “culture” is an isolated entity unto itself, separated or disconnected from the world outside the (imaginary) boundaries within which lies that so-called culture. To greater or lesser extents, every such entity is connected to other entities, in interaction, in power relations, in a set of political and economic relations. These relationships and dynamics have been global for at least 1000 years, heightened in intensity and inequality in the past 600 years. There is no such thing as a culture unto itself that is pristinely its own. What we think we see as some kind of bounded “culture,” or as some kind of cultural value or ritual or belief or practice is never static, never frozen in time, never essentialist, but always in flux, changing, dependent upon other factors that are not necessarily visible to the observer. Individuals and groups can claim something is a cultural value (or practice or ritual), but who is making that claim for the group? Who contests it?
Thus, you can’t take a so-called cultural practice and merely assume it is a timeless ritual passed down from generation to generation and that, if it violates a “norm” codified in something like a universal declaration of human rights, it needs to be exempt from such a declaration on the grounds of cultural relativism. The argument (as you seemed to have engaged it) thus turns to this: to claim it’s a human rights violation is to impose Western hegemonic values. Your discussion centered on the example of cliterodectomy/ female circumcision/ genital cutting (which is itself not one thing or one kind of practice).
Continued...
continued from previous...
But is it as simple as all that? As I noted above, when it comes to specific cultural practices (rituals, etc) who is making that claim for the so-called “culture”? What inequalities are rationalized and reproduced on “cultural” grounds? Also, since nothing operates in isolation (more true today that ever before), how do particular practices and beliefs affect those outside those (imaginary) boundaries of the “culture” in question? Take cliterodectomy as an example. Aside from the human rights implications (who is deciding the fates of little girls? If we worry about androcentrism, shouldn’t we be worried about consequences of androcentric power anywhere it appears???), there are public health implications of that practice (including implications for the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV).
This does not mean to suggest that people do not truly believe in the meanings attached to the custom. It does mean to suggest that the discussion about this practice (or any “cultural” belief and practice) can’t be reduced to an either/or: Oh! It’s a traditional custom; thus to condemn it simply means hegemonic values are being imposed. Looking at it from a public health perspective allows you to see that nothing operates in isolation. Everything and everyone is connected.
I do understand the difficulties of coming to “universal,” global agreement on what constitutes a “human right” or a set of rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights focuses on the rights of the individual, not of the commons. Individuals have a right to own property, according the Declaration. For me, one question that “right” raises is this: are the rights of “individuals” privileged over the rights of “the commons” by means of that particular Article in the Declaration? On the other hand, given the extent of material inequality in the world, if those who have the ability (power) to protect the more vulnerable (those with limited or no access to basic resources) do not do so, isn’t that UNETHICAL? Aren’t those with the power to do so obligated to ensure—starting with a Universal Declaration of Human Rights—that all living persons have the right to the means to sustain life—to have food, clothing, shelter, medical care? What’s culturally relativist about that??
Sally, thanks for an awesome class.
I'm not sure if human experiences "should" be the foundation of human rights and policies, but I do think they often inevitably are. Empathy,for example, particularly when it involves close personal experiences, or those of friends and family, is a strong human experience and can certainly lead to the development of one's opinios.
It is imperialistic, and like Prof Reitz, I don't condone such a mentality in many situations. But as Prof Waterston says here, there's also a public health perspective to consider, especially in terms of FGM, that I would advocate on.
As much as it hurts to see so many more girls dying as a result of black market FGM, I still cannot agree with legalziing it again. It would reinforce the legitimacy of this practice, and in my opinion, go right back to continuing egregious human right violations. The reaction of the states that have this problem should instead attempt to setup ways to stop this. To warn local communities, and to enforce the current laws.
My line of thinking on the FGM and capabilities argument would allign closely with Prof Reitz. That is: A CHOICE should be made with all of the knowledge and repercussions known. Obviously, we can never say a choice is entirely of free will (particularly when ingrained cultural mentalities are present), but we should work to make it as close to this as possible. Perhaps a test of some sorts, as Prof Reitz mentioned, or a certain age of consent that is required.
And, on this note, I would also lean toward outlawing the use of the burka as well. Like I said, I see it as an extention of the oppression of women. A psychological socialization that begins at an early age and perhaps may serve as a mental justification for these young women to say to themselves that FGM is okay and expected.
Just to finish here, I really enjoyed Prof Waterston's point on the interconnection of "culture." Cultures of the world are not mutually exclusive. As Nussbaum says,
"Real cultures contain plurality and conflict, tradition, and subversion. They borrow good things from wherever they find them, none too worried about purity. We would never tolerate a claim that wiomen in our own society must embrace traditions that arose thousands of years ago--indeed, we are proud that we have no such traditions. Isn't it condescending, then, to treat Indian and Chinese women as bound by the past in ways that we are not?" (37)
Well, sure, it is. But a theory of human rights can only go so far. Localized, organized forces of advocacy and change need to supplement the cause.
Hi Sally, thanks so much for your topic on Thursday, I came out of our class so educated in certain things, ideas and concepts that I had absolutely no idea about, prior to class. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to learn about and re-think my understanding of different behaviors, cultures and beliefs.
As for your question regarding Nussbaum’s claim on human experience I am not sure that I can take a side thought I do believe that human experience is the basis and foundation for many human rights changes around the world. I also believe that there should be a general understanding of basic rights deserved by and owed to every single one of the human beings on this planet. I think that just that fact that we are all humans and that we need to be created and brought into this world in the same manner automatically makes us all deserving of the same rights and that every government in the world should ensure that every one of their citizens are afforded those rights.
As far as the argument for legalizing or criminalizing FGM, I understood your point that too many young girls are dying due to the unhealthy conditions in which these operations are being performed. However, I do not think that by legalizing it we can say that many more lives will be saved. As we discussed in class, there are also too many health risks associated with the practice, regardless of whether it is done by professionals in a safe environment.
As for your last question and whether I would object to an individual having access to the procedure under safe conditions if they so choose? I say that I cannot oppose a person deciding what they want or do not want to do to their own body, as long as the person is an adult and choses out of their own free will, to undergo certain risks. As Professor Stein mentioned, to have a government sponsor this type of practice and condoning it sends the wrong message, one we do not want to instill in young women anywhere. I agree in some distorted sort of way, that here in the United States women chose to undergo breast augmentation and we do not judge, harass or punish them for their actions. However these women chose to distort their body and we can generally say not too many are coerced into doing it. This is also not a procedure that our government has promoted, imposed, legalized or on the other hand restricted or not, but it is a practice that women have the right to have done because we live in a free society. So my answer is that if a person choses to have any invasive and potentially harmful procedure, performed, even when it is not necessary, then one should be able to do so without being judged, harassed or punished for it.
Sally,
Amazing class! Thank you for your enthusiasm and fun workshops. It really made me dive into my own beliefs and evaluate where my own understanding of “human rights” comes from.
In regards to your first question, I somewhat agree with Nussbaum’s claim that human experience should be the foundation for human rights. I do not believe that it should be the central foundation for which the human rights are developed, however, they should be a factor. One of the key elements when making a new “rule” or “law” is to be able to have others relate and understand. Similar to Joe’s connection with empathy. Once someone understands, they are able to make whatever goal more effective. By incorporating human experiences into human rights, we are allowing for an understanding and a realistic connection to the others involved. There becomes a mutual ground for which our beliefs become developed. I feel that if human rights were strictly based on ideologies and theories, it is simply unrealistic. There is a vision, but if no one has experienced it or see ways in which it is obtainable, then it is no longer a “universal human right” because there is no means for everyone to achieve it.
In the class discussion, I primarily argued against legalizing FGM because of the health issues and the long term side effects of such practice. However Sally, you do pose a point that by legalizing it, we somewhat create a safer environment because the black market of such practice will no longer be as prevalent. Honestly, I cannot choose a side now. I am still leaning towards keeping it illegal, but I do see the perspective of legalizing it. I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to such pain. The health risks are long term and the pain that comes with such procedure can last a lifetime. Being that this practice impedes upon Nussbaum’s second fundamental human capability of “bodily health and integrity,” I am against it. It affects there health and also impedes upon the fourth human capability of senses, because of the damage that is inflicted.
However, if it is ultimately the woman’s personal choice to have such a procedure done, then maybe we should allow her because it is done through her own free will. But the argument can still be made against it because she does not know the consequences or the real pain of it beforehand. She may be aware, but the actual first-hand experience of feeling the pain is unknowing. Maybe she will be against it later…
Sally,
I’m sure your class was amazing! And I’m so said I missed it. But we speak too often and am sure we can have a discussion about this some other time one on one.
But to answer your question about human experience. I have my own personal idea that, beyond the idea that we as humans are all bound to the laws of the human experience, we are also bound to the laws of existence. Essentially, we each have a commonality that can never be neglected or denied. We are each born, and die, and in between, we can all find common ground, be it in one laugh, a tear, or sharing the experience of one of our five sense. Though this sounds extremely abstract, it would lead us to an understanding that regardless of the countless differences, we have a commonality in being human, or at least in simply existing, and from there we can, perhaps, find room for what a right for all humanity may mean.
I wish I was in class, but the thought that a framework for rights may be imperialistic is extremely interesting. Sally, we need to talk about this, because I want to understand it.
I think I have to agree with Professor Stein, especially when it comes to something like female genital mutilation. I agree that sometimes, decriminalizing something is beneficial, such as marijuana, because the cost of incarceration greatly outweighs the effects of it being legal. However, female genital mutilation is often times not a choice for the woman, and even if it were, isn’t the duty of a state to protect its citizens, even against themselves. There can be an agreement than no one wishes to feel pain, and that if one does, there needs to be a certain set of circumstances for that to occur. However, this than becomes a debate of whether or not people have the right to hurt themselves, or kill themselves. But, in the context of culture, this practice is often times forced upon women, not given as a choice. I think, than, making it legal would promote the practice, and perhaps even make it harder for women to come forth and protest.
Thanks Sally that was a great class next year you are going to be a wonderful teacher.
I think human experience contribute to human rights however I am not going to cast aside the theories that have been grounded through a metaphysical support. I believe that a balance between the two is the best solution .The reason I say this is although Michelle lays the groundwork with her stated. “One of the key elements when making a new “rule” or “law” is to be able to have others relate and understand” I believe that the ideologies could be placed as a focal point with the human experience adjusting to today’s needs, that way it would be able to negate the problem of being unrealistic.
When you first brought up your option to legalizing FGM in the class discussion, I was surprised since I was under the impression that once the policy is illegal; the harms would be avoided. However once you brought up that they would just practice this tradition underground it would make sense to legalize it monitor and limit the harms. However, Professor Stein makes a valid point when she explained that by following your plan it would state sponsored FGM, which would be a problem fundamentally. I believe that Professor Stein persuaded me more with her argument because the ramifications that occur from state sponsored FGM could lead to a negative cascading effect.
I think everyone from class chose to outlaw the practice of FGM. I would say I would feel more comfortable if all their capabilities were available to them then I would agree to the practice however the problem is that I do not believe that is plausible considering that as Michelle stated "But the argument can still be made against it because she does not know the consequences or the real pain of it beforehand."
Dear Sally,
I am very sorry that I missed the class last Thursday, I heard it was simply amazing! For the purpose of the blog discussion, I would like to contribute to the debate on the legalization of FGM, female genital mutilation. From the lens of the evaluation standard in the Declaration of Human Rights, FGM impinges on women's bodily well-being and reproductive health, and it is clearly a violation of human rights. However, FGM is a thoroughly complicated customary practice that touches on various aspects of social issues. First of all, it is more than a matter of sexual repression, a well-known and notorious characteristic of FGM. In many regions, FGM is viewed in terms of aesthetic value and socioeconomic well-being. Similar to the foot-binding practice in China, FGM ensures women's marriageability and indirectly secures them financial stability, since women places where FGM flourishes lack financial independence. Basing on Nussbaum's approach to the discourse of human rights, which takes human functional capabilities into consideration, FGM is more complicated than a violation of human rights, for it undermined some human capacities while furthering others. On the one hand, the continuity of FGM deprives women's bodily health and dignity, while on the other end of the spectrum, the sudden discontinuation of FGM might strip away these women's only bargain chip to a stable life. With that being said, FGM is not simply a black and white issue concerning human rights, and to a certain extend, it is a personal choice to trade bodily health for other human capacities.
At one point in my life, my biological father attempted to force an arrange marriage upon me, and if I was unable to escape this arrangement, FGM would be part of my life destiny. Therefore, from a personal perspective, I wholeheartedly condemn FGM. But I also understand that not every woman is lucky enough, like myself, to escape this customary practice because they are trapped in a environment where any alternative is not possible. Oftentimes the only path to well-being is FGM. Therefore, I do not find criminalization of FGM to be the most effective immediate solution to this problem, because in order to secure their daughters' road to a contend life, parents would uphold FGM in a underground setting. Instead, I argue that the state should be only authorized agency to carry out FGM while embarking on creating additional education and employment opportunities for women. I understand this might sound bizarre, but I believe it is the most pragmatic transitional solution. With the state being the only agency to carry out FGM, it could eliminate dangers caused by untrained partitioners. Furthermore, the state could encourage its patients to reconsider their decisions by providing counseling therapy prior to each FGM surgery. This policy should be continued until the day women begin to enjoy enhanced socioeconomic status.
“I think I have to agree with Professor Stein, especially when it comes to something like female genital mutilation.”
I am moved that Nico finally agrees with me on something!
Only in a place like John Jay could we have student say that she narrowly escaped Female Gentile Mutilation in her own life. (I will not use the initials; that lets us forget what this harrowing practice really entails.) I once had a wonderful student who dropped out of John Jay to run away because her parents were set to send her back to her country to marry a man to whom she had been promised at age six. My heart just broke for her. I want to echo Prof. Waterston’s sentiments here that we can and should value culture but be careful not to make respect for cultural practices equivalent to the respect for universal rights, especially when those practices clearly contravene bodily integrity. Of course, this does get very complicated, as Prof. Reitz’s example of abortion reflects.
Sally, we could do multiple classes on the Nussbaum paper. You have opened a very rich vein.
Pun intended, Prof Stein? Bleecckk.
Post a Comment